We compared Cisco ACI and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation based on our users' reviews in five categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: When comparing Cisco ACI and Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Cisco ACI offers a network-centric approach with strong integration capabilities and a focus on applications. It has a more complex setup process but becomes easier to configure and manage once deployed. However, it is expensive, has a non-user-friendly GUI, and faces security and segmentation issues. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, on the other hand, has a simple setup process, good flexibility, and strong customer support. However, there is limited information on pricing and licensing, and it may pose challenges for large organizations.
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"The real bonus is the fact that we can secure applications, all the way down to the individual services, on each host. It's actually more granular security than we can get out of a traditional firewall."
"That is primarily because I've seen increased rules. It's kind of caught us a little off guard. With GuardiCore, I have had to deal with their technical support and engineering team in Israel. They are amazing. They are very quick to adapt."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"This solution is easy to configure, and it is done in an object-oriented manner."
"What's most valuable in Cisco ACI is that it isn't like the legacy infrastructure where you have a lot of complexity in a TTR architecture. What I like most about Cisco ACI is that you can control those devices from a single console, even if you have three hundred devices. You can manage the entire infrastructure from a single point of contact, so Cisco ACI is a time saver. Another exclusive feature of Cisco ACI is its API interface that lets you enhance automation within the environment. You can manage your entire data center from a single interface through Cisco ACI. If you want to upgrade three hundred devices in one click, you can do that, and within one hour, all three hundred devices will be upgraded. I also like that Cisco keeps enhancing the product by adding different features, so there have been five major releases of Cisco ACI. Another valuable feature of the solution is that it's more user-friendly than Aruba and Juniper."
"It has made it much easier to deploy and make changes in the data center versus the previous infrastructure, which was NX-OS based."
"Because we can use automation processes with this platform, we have been able to free up our IT department's time."
"Once we have it running, it should be easier for us to program our IT rather than going case-by-case, by switches and different elements, or program it by hand."
"We can support policy based on our intent, then that gets rendered into the policy that we will be using for Fabric."
"I especially like the host-based routing feature of Cisco ACI because it's straightforward to do it on different data centers. Another valuable feature of Cisco ACI is that its management controller works very well with no issues."
"It provides flexibility, so you can install it everywhere."
"It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"The long-term management of the security policies could be improved with some kind of automation platform, something like Chef or Puppet or Ansible, to help you manage the policies after day-one... to then manage the policies and changes to those policies, going forward, through some type of automation process is not turning out to be really easy."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"It's a very complex system, as it should be. It's a new way of thinking about networking. Cisco ACI adds complexity. Cisco ACI is extremely complex. That's not necessarily a complaint, as much as it is a fact."
"For Multipod we need Layer 3 devices that support multicast. Customers ask: "Why can't ACI do that? Why do we need a dedicated Layer 3 device for this?" If they go for Multi-Site there is no need for that, ACI can do it. So Cisco needs to increase the Multipod features in ACI."
"The only drawback that we are seeing is the user interface is still a little complex and difficult to use. It needs a more user-friendly interface."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"Cisco ACI would benefit by providing the option to integrate easily with DNAC in their next release."
"There should be an alternative "ACI Light" solution for smaller-sized enterprises."
"I would like to be able to test the upgrades in a simulation before implementing them in production because not everyone has a lab."
"ACI's blade servers could be more flexible, and its storage interface is a little too complex because they use some third-party storage solution."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 3rd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 17 reviews while Cisco ACI is ranked 2nd in Cloud and Data Center Security with 96 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Cisco ACI is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco ACI writes "Stable, easy to extend, scalable, and has a host-based routing feature". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Zero Networks Microsegmentation, whereas Cisco ACI is most compared with VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Nuage Networks, Juniper Contrail Networking and HPE SDN. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Cisco ACI report.
See our list of best Cloud and Data Center Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud and Data Center Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
